Popes also lose, as when facing a recalcitrant publisher:

The first edition of the Ratzinger/Sarah Book is already printed and the French publishing-house Fayard will not change anything.

Francis was not pleased, Was “Furious,” Wanted A “Total Defeat”

When the Ratzinger/Sarah book [arguing against removing
the celibacy requirement for priests] became known, “all hell broke loose in the Vatican,” Bergoglio [Francis] was “furious,” writes Francis critic Antonio Socci (FaceBook) referring to anonymous sources.

Why? Because:

Such an authoritative pronouncement from Benedict XVI prevents him from smashing priestly celibacy, as had been his intention to do in the forthcoming Post-[Amazon] Synodal Exhortation.

Details are messy indeed, with Francis personally calling and giving orders to Benedict’s spokesperson.

Francis stymied?

It will be a serious problem, in fact, for Francis to make an opening for the married priesthood and the female diaconate after his predecessor and a cardinal of profound doctrine and of radiant holiness of life like Sarah have taken such a clear and powerfully argued position in support of priestly celibacy, addressing themselves to the reigning pope almost in the words of an ultimatum, through the pen of the one but with the full agreement of the other.

Speaking up, they rise to the occasion.

Something I hear called the Deep State? I think that’s it.

At Power Line, we sometimes refer to the Washington Post as an adjunct of the Democratic Party. To an even greater degree, the Post is an adjunct of official Washington — the cadre of career bureaucrats and former officials who consider it their God given right to set policy, regardless of what elected officials desire. (There is, of course, considerable overlap between official Washington and the Democratic Party).

Thus, it’s not surprising that a few minutes after I read Steve’s post called “Trump’s sin: Conducting foreign policy without permission,” I read this Washington Post story called “Trump is short on advisers, allies as he faces Iran crisis.” In this article, the Post argues, is essence, that Trump is committing the sin of conducting foreign policy without permission.

Who or what does he think he is, anyhow?

But stayed within the leftist cocoon where he found a lot of other Jesuits, embracing the elusive “option for the poor” and other seductive Marxist initiatives. Alas, this meant certain activities or inactivities which ignore the plight of the oppressed, as is observed in this NC Register article about a questionable jubilee:

An emphasis on social reform becomes a slippery thing, as the preferred means of social reform — political action — can displace the gospel itself. Consider Father Sosa, who is from Venezuela.

Venezuela’s Maduro regime is the leading violator of human rights in Latin America, the cause of starvation levels of poverty in what should be a rich country, and the largest producer of refugees in the world.

Yet Father Sosa is largely silent about all of this, embracing instead a politics that prefers not to criticize leftist regimes. Politics here trumps social justice.

That would be Father Arturo Sosa, the Jesuit superior general, who was on hand for the celebration in Rome of a major Jesuit social-action initiative.

He also “denies the historicity of the gospels” and “doesn’t believe that the devil exists.” Or didn’t until changing his mind three months later.

Wot the hell? Wot the hell, Archie?